GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Mistral Small 3.2 vs Step 3.5 Flash
Too close to call on our weighted score (Mistral Small 3.2 64, Step 3.5 Flash 62, GLM-4.7-FlashX 61). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.7-FlashX
61/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.40
- Context200K
Mistral AIMistral Small 3.2
64/100- ECI131.7
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context128K
StepFunStep 3.5 Flash
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context256K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Mistral Small 3.2 64/100, Step 3.5 Flash 62/100, GLM-4.7-FlashX 61/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Mistral Small 3.2 on price and Step 3.5 Flash for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceMistral Small 3.2 and Step 3.5 FlashMistral Small 3.2 $0.15 · Step 3.5 Flash $0.15 · GLM-4.7-FlashX $0.152 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextStep 3.5 FlashStep 3.5 Flash 256,000 · GLM-4.7-FlashX 200,000 · Mistral Small 3.2 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsMistral Small 3.2GLM-4.7-FlashX: Text · Mistral Small 3.2: Text, Images · Step 3.5 Flash: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.7-FlashX | Mistral Small 3.2 | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 89 | 89 | 89 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 50 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 24 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 61/100 | 64/100 | 62/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | GLM-4.7-FlashXZ.ai (Zhipu) | Mistral Small 3.2Mistral AI | Step 3.5 FlashStepFun |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 131.7 | — |
| ECI rank | — | #123 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 49.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 30.3% | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.07 (best) | $0.10 | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.40 | $0.30 (best) | $0.30 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.01 (best) | — | $0.02 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.152 | $0.15 (best) | $0.15 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official Mistral API | Official StepFun (Global) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 128,000 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 16,384 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No | Yeslow · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Open |
| API model ID | glm-4.7-flashx | mistral-small-2506 | step-3.5-flash |
| API providers | 8 (best) | 6 | 8 (best) |
| Released | Jan 19, 2026 | Jun 20, 2025 | Jan 29, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | Mar 2025 | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- GLM-4.7-FlashX$1.50
- Mistral Small 3.2$1.60
- Step 3.5 Flash$1.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.7-FlashX, Mistral Small 3.2 or Step 3.5 Flash?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Mistral Small 3.2 64/100, Step 3.5 Flash 62/100, GLM-4.7-FlashX 61/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Mistral Small 3.2 on price and Step 3.5 Flash for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-FlashX, Mistral Small 3.2 or Step 3.5 Flash?
Mistral Small 3.2 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price). Step 3.5 Flash costs $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price); GLM-4.7-FlashX costs $0.07 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.15 per million tokens for Mistral Small 3.2 versus $0.15 for Step 3.5 Flash (1× as much) and $0.152 for GLM-4.7-FlashX (1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. GLM-4.7-FlashX has not been scored yet, Mistral Small 3.2 has an ECI of 131.7 and Step 3.5 Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7-FlashX, Mistral Small 3.2 and Step 3.5 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Step 3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 200,000 for GLM-4.7-FlashX and 128,000 for Mistral Small 3.2. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7-FlashX up to 131,072, Mistral Small 3.2 up to 16,384, Step 3.5 Flash up to 256,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.7-FlashX accepts text; Mistral Small 3.2 accepts text and images; Step 3.5 Flash accepts text. Mistral Small 3.2 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Step 3.5 Flash is the newest, released Jan 29, 2026. GLM-4.7-FlashX came out Jan 19, 2026; Mistral Small 3.2 came out Jun 20, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7-FlashX Apr 2025, Mistral Small 3.2 Mar 2025, Step 3.5 Flash Jan 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Devstral Small 2Mistral AI
- GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Seed 2.0 LiteByteDance Seed
- GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Trendyol Asure 12BTrendyol
- Mistral Small 3.2 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogle · ECI 133.9
- Mistral Small 3.2 vs Qwen3 30B A3BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 136.2
- Mistral Small 3.2 vs Llama 4 Maverick 17B InstructMeta · ECI 132.2
